So You Have Proven God Does Not Exist, Now What?

How many billions of people have had the brain capacity to solve or invent incredible things, yet they spent their lives thinking on gods and bibles?
Take away the these fantasies and ONE of these people could've come up with a way to time travel or...who knows?

I can't remember the documentary I watched, but it claims that many of the great minds throughout history stopped their research because they couldn't
go any further with the knowledge they had, so they simply assumed that the only answer left was god. I know that Newton was one of them. Imagine what
more they could have come up with if a god wasn't in their vocabulary?

So, if the gods were finally proven to be false, the kids today would learn more than at any other time in our history.

I suppose I have just a few questions, without giving the matter much thought.

Assume, just for a moment that there is a God with all of the attributes anyone ascribes to Him. Absolute goodness, love, mercy, etc. The Being that
created us and everything else that exists. Infinite in every respect. Could you meet such a being and not fall down and worship? Please consider
that. We can't even see a newborn without getting all sentimental and squishy. But God? I don't see how I could stand in front of him, but would
fall to my knees wanting to ask for His forgiveness, praise Him, accept His infinite love. If anyone could spit in His eye and say "I'm my own
person, get lost," that person would have a serious deficiency in their heart and soul.

But, OK, say there is no God. Just the neurons and sub-atomic particles that go whirling around. Why bother to do anything at all? It's all
meaningless. Whether you live or die, starve or feast, the result is the same. The particles will just keep whirling around after you stop using
them.

"Ah, but there are things that are good I can do good things while I'm here." Really? You don't want to live a live based on lies and
illusions, but on truth, right? So in the words of that famous hand washer "What is truth?"

I've heard various answers to that. One is "We should do whatever we want. That's a good thing." I simply say, Charles Manson (no relation to
me). Or any of a million other headline makers, famous for doing what they thought was "good" and most other people thought was "bad." So,
what's "good?" What the majority says is good? ATSers are too individual to accept that.

Eventually, in this kind of discussion, we get to "continuation of the species" is the real "good." That's a fine opinion to have, but what is
it based on? There is no particular reason to accept that position, besides, the species will not survive. It may take ten years to kill us all off,
or ten million years, but eventually even those atoms whirling around will become useless in the Heat Death.

The point is that sheer logic can never, by the rules of logic, get anyone to the point of saying that anything is "good." There has to be an
accepted premise that "X" is good. Anything you put in place of "X" besides God is subject to the withering attack, "How do you know it's good?
Even death is good sometimes."

If we accept the non-existence of God, we are left with only the delusions we follow, and the unsubstantiated claims we make. It's certainly
possible, and sometimes even pleasant, to lie to ourselves, but that's not the life for me.

I'll add on. Why is your God worthy of your following if you believe he harshly judges others based on them not believing him or following him? Do
you not find your God to be a horrible being for knowingly allowing others to not be saved by simply not making himself present to mankind in this day
and age? Has your God honestly lost touch with how humans thought process has changed over the centuries, and millenniums since Jesus arrived on this
Earth?

Please show me where I said that God judges others harshly? You have many assumptions about what I believe and no understanding of what I have said in
the past. My comment was simple, I am not here to "save" anyone, I do not have that power or authority. As to what salvation means and what it means
to not be saved, you have no idea what I believe and never asked me.

There was no assumption to be made as you made it clear you were a Christian. Now you're gonna tell me you're a Christian but only follow or believe
half of what is in the book? Or that you only follow certain teachings within your denomination? You either are or you aren't, you can't put half
faith and belief into something.

As a Christian you believe in the God portrayed in your book, otherwise you simply have no religious following and you've strayed away from your
religion in search and pursuit of your own God, that you've pieced together with bits and pieces of your religious followings and life experiences.

There was no assumption to be made as you made it clear you were a Christian. Now you're gonna tell me you're a Christian but only follow or believe
half of what is in the book? Or that you only follow certain teachings within your denomination? You either are or you aren't, you can't put half
faith and belief into something.

As a Christian you believe in the God portrayed in your book, otherwise you simply have no religious following and you've strayed away from your
religion in search and pursuit of your own God, that you've pieced together with bits and pieces of your religious followings and life experiences.

Dear FidelityMusic,

I never said what denomination I was. I absolutely believe the bible speaks the truth, it is understanding what it says that is often clouded by
people's personal preferences. When someone like Benny Hinn claims to be a christian and tells people that God is a giant slot machine, am I wrong to
disagree with him? There are plenty of false prophets, which one do you think I must follow? My first thread on ATS was about Harold Camping (the
"christian" that claimed the world would end), I said he was a false prophet spreading spiritual lies and poison. Atheists accused me of not being
christian enough. LOL. He was proven to be a false prophet and his prophesies were lies. You might like to accuse me of judging him; but, I did not.
The bible says that you will know a prophet because he is never wrong and Camping had already been wrong a couple of times. As for my beliefs, well a
man who has preached before millions, was a missionary in Central and South America for almost 20 years and was an assistant to one of the most
revered Pastors in the last 100 years recruited me to preach. I am still doing it so, I guess my beliefs are in line with our church. They do not have
to be in line with the foolishness taught by others.

Who says technological progress is anything worth praising over religious pursuits? Technology of today has brought us to a point where we no longer
socialize with eachother but spend our faces stuck in a computer or smart phone, we have become more heartless and self absorbed through technology in
my opinion. I know your posts and you are always a straightforward guy and I like that about you, so you and I both know the more advanced our
technology is, the more capable we will become of destroying eachother. Technological and scientific progress does not equal human progress, it is not
the end all. Our brightest minds spend their thought process on how to rip off the layman such as ourselves, and our brightest minds spend most of
their brain power developing drugs to enlarge penises and further enhance our ability to put across a front of someone not us. No I am not saying
technology in general is bad or anything, it does bring alot of good, but at the same time it is replacing our humanity. Maybe holding back
technological progress is a good thing if your idea of "progress" is today's youth, I am being satirical of course. I will leave you with this;

"Always learning but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth". 2 Timothy 3:7

I don't think I said technological progress, but I will amend it anyway and say knowledge is what I meant. Yes, we have the technological means to
destroy the planet, but you have to consider that the billions and billions of believers in a god have done nothing to turn us away from this path.
Our entire species has been indoctrinated by the idea of peace and love for the last 6,000 years; evidently, this isn't working. And, it isn't
working because of all the gods that have come and gone, humans are still humans. We haven't changed. We can't change. What you see in this world is
what we are. Our needs and wants and emotions are exactly the same as it was in the oldest civilization.

Technological and scientific progress does not equal human progress,

Agree, but with religion we get dominated by ignorance. I'd like to continue but I have to get to work. Have a good day.

This may shock you but I agree with you! I am Christian in the sense that I follow Christ and His teachings [or try to most of the times lol] I agree
with you that "religion" has caused a lot of grief and has held back progress for centuries. When you talk about ignorance, I don't throw God's
teaching under that same boat. There are some verses in the Bible encouraging one to be ignorant about the ways of the world, and that refers to the
sinful things, but nowhere does it say to not pursue science or not learn of God's world which He created. In fact studying God's world can even
bring you closer to Him. Where the divide comes into place is when we get to the areas where it brings up the old evolution vs creation, but that is a
whole 'nother topic.

TBH I think it says far more about you If the only thing stopping you do nasty things is your belief in God, Morality is in us all, It is not taught
it is part of who we are without it we would have died off years ago.

You didn't read my post all the way, I said I wasn't being serious about God being the only thing holding me back from becoming a monster. But I
agree with you that there is good embedded within us, I believe our sinful nature overwhelms it though. If we were created in the imaged of God, and
God is love, then wouldn't that explain why we have that good embedded in us? Otherwise what explains the good in us? Apart from upbringing and
environment?

Go on then....but I think you will find far more credible evidence to show evolution is true.

I didn't say that evolution wasn't true. However it's framed and driven by a creative intent according to intelligent design.

Here take a look at this thread from this post from another thread on Page
19 through to the bottom of that page, and you'll get an idea of what I'm referring to. Then, after reviewing that and thinking on it deeply,
come back and try to but forth an argument for random coincidence. I think you'll find that it doesn't work in the face of the data, which points to
intelligent design by creative intent or what I call the Creative Agency.

There is evidence of intelligent design and creative intent spread out all over the creation, even embedded in the earth, moon, sun and stars.

Agree. However, there is no evidence whatsoever of an ALL-knowing, ALL-powerful, inVISible being who is EVERYWHERE, who created the WHOLE universe,
who lives in another dimension called heaven, who is PERFECT in every way, and who was never born and will never die.

There are things that point to an intelligence that isn't perfect, which is why the universe will tear itself to shreds. The DNA of monkeys is more
complicated than man's DNA by two extra chromosomes. However, weaved within the monkey's DNA are 200 potential inheritable genetic diseases. Again,
man has two chromosomes LESS than monkeys (less complicated) and we have over FOUR THOUSAND potential inheritable genetic diseases.

There is evidence of intelligent design and creative intent spread out all over the creation, even embedded in the earth, moon, sun and stars.

Agree. However, there is no evidence whatsoever of an ALL-knowing, ALL-powerful, inVISible being who is EVERYWHERE, who created the WHOLE universe,
who lives in another dimension called heaven, who is PERFECT in every way, and who was never born and will never die.

Haisch is an astrophysicist whose professional positions include Staff Scientist at the Lockheed Martin Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory, Deputy
Director for the Center for Extreme Ultraviolet Astrophysics at the University of California, Berkeley, and Visiting Fellow at the Max-Planck
Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics in Garching, Germany. His work has led to close involvement with NASA; he is the author of over 130 scientific
papers; and was the Scientific Editor of the Astrophysical Journal for nine years, as well as the editor in chief of the Journal of Scientific
Exploration.

an excerpt

If you think of whitte light as a metaphor of infinite, formless potential, the colors on a slide or frame of film become a structured reality
grounded in the polarity that comes about through intelligent subtraction from that absolute formless potential. It results from the limitation of the
unlimited. I contend that this metaphor provides a comprehensible theory for the creation of a manifest reality (our universe) from the selective
limitation of infinite potential (God)...
If there exists an absolute realm that consists of infinite potential out of which a created realm of polarity emerges, is there any sensible reason
not to call this "God"? Or to put it frankly, if the absolute is not God, what is it? For our purposes here, I will indentify the Absolute with God.
More precisely I will call the Absolute the Godhead. Applying this new terminology to the optics analogy, we can conclude that our physical universe
comes about when the Godhead selectively limits itself, taking on the role of Creator and manifesting a realm of space and time and, within that
realm, filtering out some of its own infinite potential...
Viewed this way, the process of creation is the exact opposite of making something out of nothing. It is, on the contrary, a filtering process that
makes something out of everything. Creation is not capricious or random addition; it is intelligent and selective subtraction. The implications of
this are profound.

If the Absolute is the Godhead, and if creation is the process by which the Godhead filters out parts of its own infinite potential to manifest a
physical reality that supports experience, then the stuff that is left over, the residue of this process, is our physical universe, and ourselves
included. We are nothing less than a part of that Godhead - quite literally.

And just to show that this isn't the idle speculations of a mad scientist (however well credentialled), a colleague of Haisch when working with the
very same set of equations actually derived Newton's famous equation of the law of motion F=M/A!

My first inkling that the deceptively simple "Let there be light" might actually contain a profound cosmological truth came in early July 1992.
I was trying to wrap things up in my office in Palo Alto so that I could spend the rest of the summer doing research on the X-ray emission of stars at
the Max Planck Institute in Garching, Germany. I came in one morning just before my departure and found a rather peculiar message on my answering
machine; it had been left at 3 a.m.by a usually sober-minded colleague, Alfonso Rueda, a professor at California State University in Long Beach. He
was so excited by the results of a horrifically-long mathematical analysis he had been grinding through that he just had to tell me about it, knowing
full well I was not there to share the thrill.

What he had succeeded in doing was to derive the equation: F=ma. Details would follow in Germany.

Most people will take this in stride with a "so what?" or "what does that mean?" After all what are F, m and a, and what is so noteworthy about a
scientist deriving a simple equation? Isn't this what scientists do for a living? But a physicist will have an incredulous reaction because you are
not supposed to be able to derive the equation F=ma. That equation was postulated by Newton in his Principia, the foundation stone of physics, in
1687. A postulate is a law that you assume to be true, and from which other things follow: such as much of physics, for example, from that particular
postulate. You cannot derive postulates. How do you prove that one plus one equals two? The answer is, you don't. You assume that abstract numbers
work that way, and then derive other properties of addition from that basic assumption.

But indeed, as I discovered when I began to write up a research paper based on what Rueda soon sent to Garching, he had indeed derived Newton's
fundamental "equation of motion." And the concept underlying this analysis was the existence of a background sea of light known as the electromagnetic
zero-point field of the quantum vacuum.

Science and the Akashic Field, an Integral Theory of Everything, 2004 www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1249275852&sr=8-1

And, his other seminal work
Science and the Reenchantment of the Cosmos: The Rise of the Integral Vision of Reality www.amazon.com...=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1249275852&sr=8-6

Ervin Laszlo is considered one of the foremost thinkers and scientists of our age, perhaps the greatest mind since Einstein. His principal focus of
research involves the Zero Point Field. He is the author of around seventy five books (his works having been translated into at least seventeen
languages), and he has contributed to over 400 papers. Widely considered the father of systems philosophy and general evolution theory, he has worked
as an advisor to the Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. He was also nominated for the Nobel
Peace Prize in both 2004 and 2005. A multidisciplinarian, Laszlo has straddled numerous fields, having worked at universities as a professor of
philosophy, music, futures studies, systems science, peace studies, and evolutionary studies. He was a sucessful concert pianist until he was thirty
eight.

In his view, the zero-point field (or the Akashic Field, as he calls it) is quite literally the "mind of God".

Naming Hal Puthoff, Roger Penrose, Fritz-Albert Popp, and a handful of others as "front line investigators", Laszlo quotes Puthoff who says of the
new scientific paradigm:

[What] would emerge would be an increased understanding that all of us are immersed, both as living and physical beings, in an overall
interpenetrating and interdependant field in ecological balance with the cosmos as a whole, and that even the boundary lines between the physical and
"metaphysical" would dissolve into a unitary viewpoint of the universe as a fluid, changing, energetic/informational cosmological unity."

Akasha (a . ka . sha) is a Sanskrit word meaning "ether": all-pervasive space. Originally signifying "radiation" or "brilliance", in Indian
philosophy akasha was considered the first and most fundamental of the five elements - the others being vata (air), agni (fire), ap (water), and
prithivi (earth). Akasha embraces the properties of all five elements: it is the womb from which everything we percieve with our senses has emerged
and into which everything will ultimately re-descend. The Akashic Record (also called The Akashic Chronicle) is the enduring record of all that
happens, and has ever happened, in space and time."

TBH I think it says far more about you If the only thing stopping you do nasty things is your belief in God, Morality is in us all, It is not taught
it is part of who we are without it we would have died off years ago.

Boy Monkey HBT, says I think more far about the annoying aspect things nasty everyone needs for you to buy us all night vision goggles to read your
clever black on the fade opaque whatchamcallit; if you really wanted anyone to know who you are you could disapear completely black on black all
typeface.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.